The Four Color Media Monitor

The lurch into LGBT propaganda isn't the only problem the regrettably neglected Superman franchise now suffers from. Breitbart reports the next lurch into far-left politics unlike anything you'd see in the Golden/Silver Ages is based on officially jettisoning the American Way from Superman's slogan, for the sake of "a better tomorrow":

One week after DC Comics’ decision to make the new Superman bisexual, the comic book publisher announced that after more than a half-century, The Man of Steel is no long fighting for “truth, justice, and the American way.” He’s now standing for “truth, justice, and a better tomorrow.”

“Superman’s new motto of ‘Truth, Justice and a Better Tomorrow’ will better reflect the global storylines that we are telling across DC and to honor the character’s incredible legacy of over 80 years of building a better world,” said DC Chief Creative Officer and Publisher Jim Lee. “Superman has long been a symbol of hope who inspires people from around the world, and it is that optimism and hope that powers him forward with this new mission statement.”

With this, Lee's just compounded his own image as a radical leftist, and forced anybody with common sense to take his past resume in art with a grain of salt. There's no chance they'll explore any of the most pressing issues in this modern era like Islamic terrorism, or Antifa terrorism, or even BLM terrorism. The higher echelons in the business have long sold out to radicals, and that's the viewpoints they're upholding now. So "better tomorrows" rings hollow when you realize all that's being published is activist writing, and artwork. What's additionally sickening is how the apologists keep using excuses like "comics have always been political" without making distinctions between what's a valid subject or approach, and what's not. What they're doing now is a through corruption of what began during WW2, and cannot be put up with anymore. Continue to boycott this now useless publisher to make clear this is unacceptable. There's no better tomorrow with the way things are going now.

Labels: bad editors, censorship issues, dc comics, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, politics, Superman

Tom Taylor, the far-left writer of Son of Kal-El, already becoming notorious as an LGBT propaganda vehicle, revealed a sample of what the stories would be about in the following tweet:

“Why don’t they have him fight the injustices that created the refugees whose deportation he’s protesting? That would be brave, I’d read that.”- Dean Cain.
That’s actually a big part of the story we’re telling. Glad Dean thinks it’s brave and that he’ll be reading our #Superman

— Tom Taylor (@TomTaylorMade) October 13, 2021

From #Superman Son of Kal-El issue #3. pic.twitter.com/T5FGKpdGKZ

— Tom Taylor (@TomTaylorMade) October 13, 2021

It's not hard to figure out Taylor won't be exploring any of the ideas and suggestions Cain offered, and he certainly doesn't acknowledge the exact details Cain relayed. What is apparent is that he'll be exploring, from a left-wing perspective, supposed refugees being allowed into the USA even if there's terrorists among them, although obviously, Taylor won't dwell on such issues, if at all. And the president alluded to in the panel, no doubt, could be yet another subtle attack on Donald Trump.

So it's not hard to figure where this is going politically. A leftist like Taylor cannot be expected to genuinely embrace the ideas espoused by conservatives, and it's an almost foregone conclusion he won't. Which just demonstrates how this is bound to become yet another embarrassment clogging up the bargain bins in the near future.

Labels: dc comics, Europe and Asia, islam and jihad, moonbat writers, politics, Superman, terrorism

Here's what the Greenfield Recorder says about what's taking place at the Western Massachusettes Comic Book Show this week:

The event is organized by 34-year-old Kristopher “Kit” Henry. He and his wife, Kristen Henry, who live in Turners Falls, co-own and operate Amazing Comics. Under the title, the pair attend regional comic book shows where they sell and trade from their personal collection which includes issues dating back to the 1950s, “but issues issues from the ’50s and ’60s are getting harder and harder to find,” Henry said.

Well that's why I believe the time has come to encourage people to buy the very same stories in trade collections, and it's worth noting that Marvel's probably done a better job of reprinting at least 90 percent of their inventory than DC has. There's a number of items up till the turn of the century DC has probably never taken proper steps to reprint so far, and while some of their Golden Age output was reprinted in the 2000s, it's gone out of print in the past decade since. As far as I know, only the Golden Age Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, Aquaman and Green Arrow are reprinted in the dedicated archives coming in hardcovers and paperbacks. Only the Silver Age Flash and Green Lantern stories have been put in such archives to date, but not the Golden Age stories. I cannot approve of a situation where a company marginalizes a significant portion selectively, so it's time they make sure the GA stories for Flash and Green Lantern get their own share of archive reprints, and also the original Justice Society.

The article also says one of the Ninja Turtles' co-artists, Jim Lawson, is attending this convention, but there's something here I must take issue with:

Comic book fans growing up in the ’80s and ’90s are sure to remember the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but they may not know the creators are native to the Pioneer Valley. Once struggling artists living in Northampton, Kevin B. Eastman and Peter Laird created the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in 1983. The characters have stayed at the forefront of pop-culture, having been handled by different creatives across comics, toys, television and movies for the last 38 years.

Returning this year is Jim Lawson who worked with Laird and Eastman for over two decades after being introduced by “a friend of a friend” — kick-starting a 35-year-career in comics. He connected with the creators after graduating art school and worked for them at the Mirage Studios office which opened in Northampton in 1983. Lawson would spend 25 years with Mirage Studios as a writer and artist on the original black and white Turtles comic. [...]

Even after getting a job with Mirage Studios, he kept a part-time job in Turners Falls for a year or so until his comic book work grew and he was making enough to commit full-time to writing and illustrating. He recalled when the Rat King, an original character he created for the Turtles comics, was turned into an action figure — a badge of honor among comic creators.

Seriously, that's a joy for creators, to see their creations turned into plastic toys? Why not that a sizable audience actually read the original comics? I've thought over the years about all the potential flaws in how the USA entertainment industry approaches everything commercially, and believe all this desperation to be recognized via merchandise and movies has got to be the worst mistake many writers and artists could make. If that's not how they do these things in Japan, why should it be done in the USA? There is, however, a positive to consider here:

When asked what drew people to the Turtles to make it such a craze, Lawson said this was the topic of a panel at another comic show last month and he had a couple of theories. He said the series attracted a lot of female fans, transcending some assumed gender lines of that time to reach a wider audience. Additionally, he said the Turtles characters were viewed as “outsiders” hiding in the sewers, and the stories had a family aspect that appealed to readers.

Now this provides something to ponder. Ninja Turtles, much like say, the New Teen Titans, had significant numbers of women who loved reading it over 30 years ago, and they doubtless appreciated the sex appeal of April O'Neil, leading lady co-star of the franchise. Also:

Casey Kruk, of Kruked Art, is an independent, self-taught artist. Born and raised in Western Massachusetts, Kruk’s influences include Bruce Timm, J. Scott Campbell, and Michael Turner. Her passions are her children, illustrating and comics.

Here's another important aspect to ponder. You have a lady artist here who's drawn inspiration from guys who could be considered Good Girl art specialists, and that contradicts the narrative of the sex-negative SJWs.

There's also one more notable veteran listed at the convention holding:

Marvel Comics Colorist Bob Sharen will join this year’s show. From 1978-2001, Sharen was a colorist for Marvel Comics. During this time he worked on almost every Marvel title, mostly on long runs of GI Joe, Alien Legion, and the various Spider-Man titles.

His credits include nearly 1,800 issues: Over 160 issues of The Amazing Spider-Man, 99 issues of Alpha Flight, Iron Man from 1979-1989, Captain America from 1982-1989 and over 60 issues of GI Joe from 1982-1994. Some of his favorite work includes coloring the illustrations of Paul Smith's run on Dr. Strange in the 1980s.

Yup, he's a good choice for a guest too. It looks like this convention does have some positives going for it. Even so, I think most artists have to reevaluate whether they should hope every creation of theirs ends up getting action figure toys adapted from their work, because it's not helping the zygote, and only takes away crucial attention from the comics, which doesn't help the industry.

Labels: conventions, dc comics, good artists, history, indie publishers, licensed products, marvel comics

Marvel's EIC just had his past Asian-style pseudonym come back to haunt him, as Steven deKnight, the leftist TV producer who until recently did some scriptwriting for Marvel's books, quit his position over Cebulski's approach, as Nextshark reports:

Former “Daredevil” executive producer and Marvel Comics writer Steven S. DeKnight has announced that he will no longer write for Marvel until C.B. Cebulski, the publication’s editor-in-chief, steps down from his position.

What happened: In a series of tweets shared on Sunday, DeKnight admitted he had just recently learned of Cebulski’s controversial past in which he pretended to be an Asian writer to climb up the ranks at Marvel Comics, according to Bleeding Cool.

Cebulski is learning there's a whole arrogant, unforgiving generation out there, bred by his own leftist establishment, that refuses to forgive for past "mistakes" regardless whether an apology was issued. A generation that's not acting altruistically either. And his left-wing leanings will not shield him from their retaliations. Equally leftist Gizmodo said:

Given that DeKnight was recently being announced as the writer of a new Wastelanders: Wolverine series alongside artist Ibrahim Moustafa, things between him and Marvel Comics have seemed copacetic. That all changed this past Sunday, however, as DeKnight took to his Twitter account to express dismay after learning how current Marvel editor-in-chief C.B. Cebulski, who is white, once assumed the identity of “Akira Yoshida”—a fictional Japanese man—in order to pen Marvel comics while also working as an assistant editor at the publisher (a practice that, at least at the time, was prohibited). DeKnight wrote in part, “I had no idea. I love writing for Marvel comics, but this changes the equation. Drastically. There are so many great editors there. To allow a man who climbed to the top through cultural identity theft to remain in that position is unconscionable.”

[...] Between Cebulski’s adoption of a racial identity outside of his own and his subsequent promotion to a prominent spot within Marvel, the entire situation has been an embarrassing stain on the company’s history. And it speaks to the sort of casual racism that major comics publishers like to say they have no space for. While news of Cebulski’s writing as Akira Yoshida first broke back in 2017, the topic often resurfaces on social media. DeKnight claimed to have only heard about it recently and explained that his issue has more to do with what all went into the creation of the persona, which was a lot more than a simple pseudonym.

Once, that "casual racism" the writer speaks of was actually rather accepted by such liberals, and while it may be inappropriate, I don't think we can take the claim at face value that pen names were actually prohibited at the time. I do wonder though, if deKnight has any similar views on creators and executives who committed sexual abuse, or minimized the issue, whether at work on in stories they published? Let's not forget the time when Dan DiDio published Identity Crisis in the mid-2000s, and never took any disciplinary action against Eddie Berganza, who only got banished from his job after his record of sexual misconduct became public shortly after the Harvey Weinstein scandal. Why, we could also ask whether deKnight thinks the premise of Avengers: Disassembled, turning Scarlet Witch into a total madwoman, was appropriate from an artistic perspective? Or the Sins Past storyline in Spider-Man, which resorted to shock value elements with Gwen Stacy and Norman Osborn? I know that may not be as severe as real life scandals, but still, it can suggest whoever sees fit to publish that smut has little or no issue with serious topics occurring in real life. There may not have been any sexual misconduct scandals lately, but that doesn't mean deKnight shouldn't be concerned. Indeed, he'd do a lot better to worry about cases like misogynists on the upper deck.

Will this boycott by a writer of the EIC on "moral" grounds have an impact on Cebulski's continued career as Marvel's editor? If it does, it won't be entirely sad seeing him have to vacate his seat, seeing he's proven just as bad as Quesada and Alonso were when they took the role. Sure, some good things have happened since Cebulski became EIC, such as Mary Jane Watson's return to Spidey's world after nearly a dozen years of Quesada kicking her to the curb, and they were willing to finally abandon the Sins Past/One More Day atrocity this past summer, even if it's coming much too late, and while many of the same people who concocted it to start with are still running the store. But if only Spidey sees clear redemption and mending, while other awful mistakes like retconning Iceman to homosexual remain standing, Tony Stark remains retconned away from his biological parents, and Carol Danvers is still stuck in the badly crafted role of Capt. Marvel, that's not getting anywhere. Oh, and lest we forget, is the Spider-marriage still not restored? Well, I guess you could add that to the list of injustices unrepaired, so even Spidey's world hasn't seen full reparations yet.

And whatever projects deKnight was working on, there's no chance they're worth buying, one more reason why his misgivings with Cebulski are so pretentious. So far, I haven't seen any response to this by Cebulski, probably for good reason, as he realizes the MSM would willfully warp his words anyway, and it's not like he's given any major press conferences in the past 3 years either. Like various other top executives today, he doesn't talk much to the press anymore, even to celebrate what they think is worth the bother. And the saddest part is that it only makes it simultaneously easier for them to promote PC agendas in the comics.

Labels: bad editors, Daredevil, dreadful writers, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics

In this fluff-coated Captain Comics column in the Indiana Gazette, Andrew Smith continues to fawn over some TV adaptations of notable comics and other pop culture items that've already been revealed as pretentious:

“Lucifer” Season 6 (Netflix, Sept. 10): This series took the bare bones of the titlular character from Neil Gaiman’s “Sandman” and turned him into a police detective. Because that’s what TV does. But it’s been a fun ride anyway, especially thanks to the deliciously smarmy and self-involved performance of Tom Ellis.

“Y: The Last Man” Season 1 (Hulu, Sept. 13): I had some problems with the original Vertigo comic book series, among them that the lead character seemed more of a writer’s construct than a plausible everyman. That still stands. But my fellow fans loved this series, which should have been subtitled “Women Behaving Just as Badly as Men.” Because they do. But you should watch anyway, if for no other reason than the marvelous performance of Diane Lane.

Must we also watch the Y-title for the sake of the "woke" ideologies it's going by? And if Lucifer contains any of the same, are we expected to embrace that equally unquestioned? I always find it funny how these propagandists say they had problems with the original, yet somehow the adaptation is actually better?

“He-Man and the Masters of the Universe” Season 1 (Netflix, Sept. 16): I put this animated show in here just to see if you’re paying attention. Or if you have kids.

There's all sorts of reasons why it'd be better not to pay any attention, and why it may not be good for kids either. Naturally, you couldn't expect Smith to acknowledge that. I will say though, that it's downright bizarre when the new He-Man cartoon at least boasts better animation than the new She-Ra cartoon. But that's not enough to compensate for the dreadful setup.

“Spidey and his Amazing Friends” Season 1 (Disney Junior/Disney+, Sept. 22): You may remember the original “Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends” from 1981, which co-starred mutants Firestar and Iceman with the Web-Slinger. This new take co-stars spider-people from parallel worlds, Ghost Spider (Gwen Stacy) and, uh, other Spider-Man (Miles Morales). And for some reason, they’re all chibis. Or maybe Funko Pops. Or maybe misshapen children, you decide.

It sounds like this won't be all that different from a recent take on Thundercats, which had pretty dreadful animation without being creative. I wouldn't trust these western animators to do a good job with the way things are going today. Japan's cartoonists do a far better job with chibi expressions than they do.

“Doom Patrol” Season 3 (HBO Max, Sept. 23): If you thought the first two seasons were off the wall, wait’ll you sample season 3. My partner asked, “Are the comics this weird?” Yep. It’s not all capes and cowls, folks. Sometimes it’s sex ghosts and sentient ambulances.

Yet that doesn't mean it won't fall victim to social justice ideology, so even if I weren't already boycotting a lot of mainstream adaptations, I'd still want to give this a firm pass.

“Foundation” Season 1 (Apple TV+, Sept. 24): I remember reading Foundation when it was still a trilogy and thinking, “Wow, what big concepts! But no human beings.” There were characters with names and everything, but they all seemed like plot vehicles more than actual people. There was a special dearth of significant female characters, IIRC. For that reason (and sheer scope), “Foundation” was deemed un-adaptable to the screen for decades. But hey, the first two episodes have recognizable human beings, and most of the major characters are female. Not to mention eye-popping special effects. Good start, Apple.

Well I already took note of this, based on David Goyer's involvement with the production, and wasn't impressed by the emphasis on "non-binary" characters. Something curiously not made clear in this puff piece. What's so "recognizable" about that? Pathetic. How can that ensure "recognizable humans", let alone alien humanoids? And I'm not enticed by special effects either. Hollywood already sank into way too much of that in the past 20 years.

“Batwoman” Season 3 (The CW, Oct. 13): To be honest, I found the first season so dreary it took me a while to get into the second, especially since the lead actress quit, which is usually the kiss of death. To my relief, Javicia Leslie turned out to be a better Batwoman than Ruby Rose. And the upcoming season promises some expansion into the Bat-mythos, including Poison Ivy (Bridget Regan) and Batwing (Camrus Johnson).

All of which is cool and all, but when are we going to get a real, honest-to-Alfred Batman TV show instead of near-misses like “Batwoman,” “Birds of Prey,” “Gotham” and “Titans”? Seriously, all this dancing around the Big Guy is getting tedious. What’s Ben Affleck doing these days?

Considering Batman's been overused, why does this matter? For now, this too is pretty sugary commentary, all the more reason to avoid what's become another wokefest.

“DC’s Legends of Tomorrow” Season 7 (The CW, Oct. 13): I only watch this show intermittently, because it really is just a comedy where the status quo is always in flux. But it’s a really well-done comedy, and I can roll with whatever team is present when I tune in.

I'm not sure how a TV show that's succumbed to as much leftist ideology as the Supergirl show can be that funny, and that's why I'm not tuning in.

“Aquaman: King of Atlantis — The Animated Trilogy” (HBO Max, Oct 14): This three-episode series features some wackadoodle animation and a bizarre Aquaman with a blue beard. Could be some serious aqua-fun.

I've got a feeling it's not, if only because, not only is there a possibility this too'll be a wokefest, it could be just as lethargically animated as the Thundercats Roar cartoon.

I vaguely remember a time when Data the android in Star Trek: The Next Generation said during the 3rd season that the popularity of television didn't last beyond the year 2040. For all we know, that might end up being a prediction, based on the way things are going on TV with all these overwrought adaptations.

Labels: animation, Aquaman, Batman, dc comics, licensed products, marvel comics, msm propaganda, politics, Spider-Man

As some people guessed, the recently created son of Superman, named after Kal-El's adoptive father, Jonathan, has been retconned to bisexual, just like Tim Drake, the 3rd Robin (who's been around longer). Breitbart reports:

According to a report in the New York Times, the new Superman, Jonathan Kent — son and heir of Clark Kent and Lois Lane — will soon begin a romantic relationship with a male friend, DC Comics announced Monday.

“The idea of replacing Clark Kent with another straight white savior felt like a missed opportunity,” Tom Taylor, who writes the series, said in an interview covered by the newspaper. He said a “new Superman had to have new fights — real world problems — that he could stand up to as one of the most powerful people in the world.”

The concept of a new all woke Man of Steel and or associated comic character(s) is not new.

As the NYT reports, Batman’s sidekick, Robin, recently acknowledged romantic feelings for a male friend (not Dick Grayson — who was Batman’s partner for over four decades — but Tim Drake, a later replacement; there are multiple Robins just as there are multiple Supermen).

The issue of geo-politics has also been broached by the character when in 2011 DC decided Superman would no longer stand for the United States but would become a “citizen of the world.”

Certainly, it's far from the first time DC's editorial ever allowed divisive liberal politics to clog up their books. The disgraced Gerard Jones, who's still in prison for his criminal offenses with child porn, was one of the earliest leftist writers who set comicdom on a path of extremely bad stuff littering mainstream superhero fare in the 90s, and he seems to be the writer who turned Obsidian homosexual in the mid-90s too, which tragically stuck, in a serious insult to character creator Roy Thomas.

As for Taylor, who's written this stunt with the Super-son, he's quite a far-leftist himself, having exploited the Suicide Squad for injecting his woke politics into an entertainment product in the past year, and he was among several writers who attacked J.K. Rowling for her brave stand against LGBT propaganda. So it was never shocking he could go this far, and who didn't see this coming as it did?

And if you think that's stupefying enough, take a look at what the Verge tells will be the stories:

Superman: Son of Kal-El also looks to offer a more modern take on the character. Jon Kent’s version of the hero will not only face off against the usual run of supervillains but also contemporary issues like climate change and school shootings.

DC isn’t shying away from similarities to Clark Kent’s famous romances, either: like Lois Lane (Jon’s mother), Jay is also a reporter, although Taylor teased in the same IGN interview that he’ll have some superpowers of his own that will allow him to meet Superman on his level instead of serving as another person for Jon to save.

According to the reports, said power may be invincibility, and this certainly demonstrates another serious problem: insularity. It's been stressed as a huge flaw in superhero comics of that past, most notably in - but not limited to - team titles. This stunt proves they're no different.

The usual left-wing propagandists took to apologia, predictably. For example, Dani di Placido at Forbes:

Just like his father, Jon’s new love interest is a reporter, Jay Nakamura, who takes care of Superman after he “mentally and physically burns out from trying to save everyone that he can.” A press release from DC says that, “Superman’s symbol has always stood for hope, for truth, and for justice,” and now it “represents something more” since “more people can see themselves in the most powerful superhero in comics.”

The announcement sparked a predictable shockwave, as social conservatives seemed confused and unsettled by the news, many under the impression that it was original Superman Clark Kent who had come out, rather than his son.

This guy really seems to think we're that stupid. It's already been reported by most sources that this is a different character, and the man even has the gall to say this:

Fox News (whose viewers are exceedingly unlikely to be purchasing comics starring the son of Superman), had a particularly unhinged segment in which a guest laments the perceived lack of heterosexuality among modern superheroes, blurting out:

“Why are they sexualizing superheroes? …. We just wanted them to get the bad guys, not a venereal disease.”

Strange to assume that non-heterosexual representation translates to “sexualizing superheroes,” especially considering the fact that the vast majority of superhero stories are written for children, and often feature romantic relationships.

I think it's pretty clear di Placido's one of a whole generation of propagandists who're not experts in the comic field, and the only reason they're giving their responses is because the steps taken are something they agree with. Superhero comics stopped being written solely for children decades ago, and this jerk has the nerve to obscure years of significant stories like Stan Lee writing up the notable Spider-Man tale about drug addiction in 1971? He doesn't even recognize that the real issue is normalizing the corruption of sexuality, along with perversion of the same. Romantic relations are fine, but if he's saying there's no difference between heterosexual depictions and homosexual, that's dismaying, but expected from somebody who's obviously not a fan, and has no business lecturing us on how to make an entertainment vehicle.

Not to mention, there’s nothing unusual about a legacy superhero (a new character taking on the mantle of an established superhero) boasting a different kind of identity to their mentor. Introducing new and exciting legacy characters is a common tactic by comic book writers to keep things fresh, as well as an opportunity to introduce diversity to a line-up of fairly homogenous characters.

Sometimes, legacy characters become wildly popular with fans, and can even eclipse the original character; the animated film Into the Spider-Verse famously played with legacy characters from alternate universes, such as Miles Morales and Gwen Stacy, to highlight the fact that anyone can be behind the Spider-Man mask.

Judging from sales numbers lower than 100,000 copies a series, I wonder what his point is? I guess Luke Cage, in his twisted view, is solely "homogenous", right? Not to mention he makes a big deal out of anybody wearing the Spidey outfits, when there's plenty of other characters with full masks whose exact identities aren't clear either (the Red Tornado parody from All-American Comics in the Golden Age is an early example, where Ma Hunkel took up the guise in the Scribbly feature), because that's all that matters, not story merit.

In fact, comic books, particularly superhero comics, have always been known for experimenting with different scenarios and variations; there have been stories which feature a Soviet-Russian Superman, multiple versions of Evil Superman, a gender-swapped Superman and an African-American Superman (who will soon star in the upcoming Superman film written by Ta-Nehisi Coates).

Recently, superhero comics have seen a greater focus on LGBTQ representation; Marvel Comics has revealed X-Men’s Iceman to be gay, as well as announcing its first gay Captain America, while the latest Robin in the Batman comics came out as bisexual in August.

This says all you need to know where di Placido stands on the issue of Coates, and the Iceman retcon he doesn't have the courage to describe as such. Not to mention how he thinks LGBTQ ideology is literally the best thing that could happen.

Another apologist, who was surely already prepared for this and notified in advance, is the insufferable Glen Weldon, whom ABC Chicago quotes:

NPR's Glen Weldon, who's written a book on Batman and regularly writes about comics, said that the queering of characters like Robin and Superman is "progress," but because the characters who come out are not the canonical iterations of heroes -- Drake isn't the only Robin in the DC Universe, and Jon Kent's father will always be the best-known Superman -- the plot developments aren't as significant or genre-shifting as they seem, Weldon wrote this week.

Still, Weldon said, a bisexual Superman and queer Robin are worth celebrating -- they're not a one-dimensional villain or side character who's quickly killed off, but the "heroes of their own stories."

He's still keeping on with that appropriation angle, taking characters people like him never created, and changing them all to suit his narrow visions. This is exactly why I don't want people like Weldon talking about comics, let alone movies. They're not really interested in the story merit, but in selfish and entitled ideology.

Somebody with a more realist view of this disgrace is actor Dean Cain, who said in the UK Mail:

Cain, 55, who played the superhero for four years in the hit 90s TV series Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, slammed DC for hailing the move as a 'bold new direction' during an appearance on Tuesday's Fox & Friends First - while calling for the company to focus its efforts on 'fighting real evil in the world'.

The actor pointed out that Superman is the latest in a long line of superhero characters to be given an LGBTQ+ plotline - which comes just two months after DC Comics announced that Batman sidekick Robin was also going to start dating a man.

'They said it's a bold new direction... I say they're bandwagoning,' Cain said in his on-air interview. 'Robin, of Batman and Robin, just came out as bi or gay recently and honestly who's really shocked about that one? I had some thoughts about that a long time ago.

'The new Captain America is gay, my daughter in [the CW series] Supergirl, where I payed the father, she was gay.

'So I don't think it's bold or brave or some crazy new direction. If they had done this 20 years ago, perhaps that would have been bold or brave.'

At worst, it's cowardice, and contempt for the original creators. The left complains about "cultural appropriation", but when they do it with crude stunts like this, suddenly it's acceptable.

In place of sinister supervillains, Jon takes on several hot-button issues, including high school shootings, climate change, and the deportation of refugees - all of which are a world away from the old-school evil that the Man of Steel once fought.

Cain also took aim at these issues, insisting that DC Comics could have done much more to highlight the impact of 'real evil in the world' like human trafficking, women's rights in Afghanistan, or corruption.

'Brave would be having him fighting for the rights of gay people in Iran where they'll throw you off a building for the offence of being gay,' he said.

'They're talking about him fighting real-world problems like climate change and the deportation of refugees and he'll be dating a "hacktivist" whatever a "hacktivist" is, I don't know.

'Why don’t they have him fight the injustices that created the refugees whose deportation he’s protesting? That would be brave, I'd read that. Or fighting for the rights of women to attend school and have the ability to work and live, and boys not to be raped by men under the new warm and fuzzy Taliban. That would be brave.

'There's real evil in this world today, real corruption and government overreach, plenty of things to fight against. Human trafficking, real actual slavery going on... it would be brave to tackle those issues, shine a light on those issues. I'd like to see the character doing that. I'd read that comic.'

That's what makes this so hypocritical. They're not doing this as a statement against barbarism in Islamic countries, but rather, as a means to damage morale in western societies. Do writers like Taylor, Weldon and di Placido even care about the dangers the refugee problem's led to? Not the least bit. Nor does DC editor Marie Javins, who obviously greenlighted this sleazy step. In the end, this is yet another reason why it's vital to boycott DC. And surely the worst thing about this is that the neglect the Man of Steel fell into during the past decade is obviously one of the reasons why this smut happened, and Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's hard work has been desecrated.

I think it's also worth noting that what's happened this year also proves why the arguments of the late illustrator Darwyn Cooke have failed miserably. He complained about such PC tactics over a decade ago, and as expected, there were those on the left (quite possibly his side of the political spectrum) who predictably would not accept his objections, as this posting at the dreadful Women Write About Comics, written shortly after his 2016 death, makes clear:

He also called DC and Marvel out on their bullshit. In this interview from 2010, Cooke talked about what needed to change in Marvel and DC:

Interviewer: “Is there anything you would like to see DC or Marvel change about the way they do business?”

Darwyn: “Yeah, I want them to stop catering to the perverted needs of 45 year-old men. I want to stop seeing Batman fucking Black Canary. I don’t want to hear Batman swearing, I don’t want to see him feeding a boy rats. I don’t want to see characters getting raped in the ass. […] I want to see new characters for a new time, and when the industry of superhero comics realizes its sights to the young people it was meant for, I’ll be there with both arms and feet outside.”

Now, within that tirade he also took a shot at “characters who have been straight for 60 years become lesbians overnight because the writer’s too stupid or uncreative to come up with something decent,” meaning Kate Kane, who has turned out to be one of the most important queer women for DC. His comments predated WWAC, but this since deleted post on The Beat covers most of the controversy, and the follow up clarifying statement he made.

I separated out these comments because legacy is never black and white. Legacy is how other people choose to write about you. People are infinitely more complex than the words we have to remember them by can represent, and to highlight one aspect while erasing another doesn’t honor a person’s memory. But those comments and that controversy need context too. Most people, it seems, forgave Cooke for the off-the-cuff comment he made, even if they disagreed with his position, and I think that says as much about him as his words, or his art.

Unfortunately, I think the writer took offense at Cooke for coming within even miles of arguing against normalization of homosexuality, which is certainly how such PC advocates perceive it (did they ever complain about Batman cast member Renee Montoya becoming lesbian overnight in Gotham Central? Guess not). No wonder she edited out the original line from the interview. And in her entitled viewpoint, he "wrote about her". She didn't even consider that the whole problem with the creation of Kate Kane is that we're supposed to care more about the lifestyle, sexual preference and prescribed ideological bent, to say nothing of the costume, more than the actual character, who wouldn't mean anything to the writer if she wasn't created as a lesbian. And describing it all as a "tirade" says quite a bit too.

More than a decade after Cooke argued against this ideological shove down the throat, and 5 years after his passing, it's clear his protests had no impact, as the retcons to Tim Drake and Jonathan Kent have made clear. If Cooke were still alive today, he'd surely be blacklisted, and it wouldn't shock me if he's long fallen out of favor with the PC crowds who're abusing corporate owned characters to suit their selfish agendas. A terrible shame.

Labels: dc comics, Europe and Asia, islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Superman, terrorism, violence

Marvel may have been willing to go to such pains to explain and retcon away the whole fiasco of Sins Past and One More Day this year, some time after there were announcements they intended to do something about it (many years too late to care, of course). But wouldn't you know it, they decided nevertheless to take Peter Parker out of the picture for the sake of the Clone Saga's substitute Spidey, Ben Reilly, and Newsarama describes what happens in the 75th issue of the current ASM volume:

Peter decides to get some alone time by web-swinging his way over to one of his favorite spots in the city, only to find someone else there - and not just someone else, but another Spider-Man (who some readers already know to be Ben Reilly, thanks to the costume).

Using the superior technology in his suit, Ben evades Peter and leaves him caught in a sort of drone trap, escaping. Later, the pair meet up out of costume, with Ben apologizing to Peter for trapping him and running away, explaining that his new bosses - the Beyond Corporation - would have been listening to their conversation through the surveillance technology in his suit.

Ben goes on to explain that the Beyond Corporation has purchased the remaining assets of Peter's former company, Parker Industries - including the legal rights to the name and likeness of Spider-Man.

At first confused, Peter realizes that Otto Octavius must have trademarked the Spider-Man name when he was inhabiting Peter's body as the Superior Spider-Man (this could become important very soon - we'll get to that).

Ben goes on to state that the Beyond Corporation is turning Spider-Man into a corporate superhero, with him under the mask - and that they would have found another candidate had he refused. Peter seems confused, but Ben clarifies that technically, he is now Spider-Man, and that the Beyond Corporation is likely to seek to stop Peter from using the identity.

I don't know if this is supposed to be some kind of commentary on conglomeracy - since Marvel's owned by one, it's doubtful they'd take a critical view of them so easily - but I do know it's a terrible shame they're falling back on elements from storylines that would've been better left in the past. Both the Clone Saga and the Superior Dr. Octopus Saga are both some of the most dreadful tales that didn't need revisiting. If anything, Ben Reilly did not need to return as part of the mid-90s canon, which I may have argued earlier needs to be jettisoned, and if it were, little value would be lost. Now, what happens here to Peter?

As Peter and Ben fight the villains, they're hit with a massive dose of radiation. Ben's suit shields him, but Peter is unprotected, leaving him seriously injured with apparent radiation poisoning - seemingly the cause of the injuries that Marvel has previously shown will take Peter out of action for some time.

But are those injuries enough to put Peter so close to death that he needs to be replaced? It doesn't seem so. In fact, the larger predicament Peter seems to be facing isn't related to bodily harm at all - but the new corporate ownership of his costume and identity as Spider-Man.

Peter may survive. If he does, it makes clear the editors realize they're going to lose much of the audience yet again if they don't keep him alive, after some of the worst embarrassments they've had in the past decade. But that's still no excuse for this story, which looks to be a contrived crossover:

Consider first that solicitations for Miles Morales: Spider-Man #33, a tie-in to 'Spider-Man Beyond', have shown an impending fight between Ben and Miles over the right to be Spider-Man, with Ben attempting to stop Miles under orders from the Beyond Corporation.

Secondly, the solicitation for December's Amazing Spider-Man #80.BEY indicates that Aunt May will seek advice for Peter's condition from Doctor Octopus, her old flame and Peter's arch-enemy (and of course the guy who stole Peter's body, and maybe even cost him his name and costume as Spider-Man).

And they think we're all literally going to care about their diversity-pandering take on Spider-Man, one of the remaining characters from the Ultimate line? Sorry. Besides, the whole premise of meeting Aunt May with Doc Ock again doesn't sound appealing either, and has been done before. Particularly dismaying, however, was the discovery writer Saladin Ahmed, he who's made only so many anti-Israel rants on Twitter, is one of the writers for the embarrassment to come. That C.B. Cebulski assigned somebody that terrible to one of Stan Lee's best creations is one of the worst insults to Lee's memory. This also pretty much demonstrates how, even as they seemingly undid Sins Past and One More Day, they have no real idea what to do with Peter and Mary Jane. And of course, they've reversed the effects of that story far too late, after many Marvel fans, realizing what terrible people are in charge, wisely bolted from the readership. If this is how they're going now, it's no wonder realists can't return.

And recalling the contrived LGBT retcons of recent to characters like Tim Drake, the 3rd Robin, Iceman, and maybe even the son of Superman, what if it turns out Marvel's going this same route with Ben Reilly? So far, that hasn't actually be confirmed. But it doesn't mean it couldn't or won't happen. If it does, that'll just be more insults to injuries.

Labels: crossoverloading, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Spider-Man, women of marvel